• About

LIVEdigitally

Our new Disclosures policy (plus some commentary)

Posted on October 9, 2009 by Jeremy Toeman

In an interesting move, the FTC has created a seemingly arbitrary set of guidelines that apply to “the bloggers” and “facebooking” and how they disclose paid-for-posts (PDF file with the actual guidelines are here).  I call it arbitrary because, well, it is, but I actually applaud the concept – just not the execution.  I agree with the overall philosophy that there are too many undisclosed “paid-for” content spots happening in the new media landscape. But it’s not just the bloggers. In fact, I’d further state that blogs should be pretty low on the target list.

For example, products are being placed in video games, movies, TV shows, magazines, etc, with little-to-no disclosure to consumers.  When I see a character in a movie using a Dell laptop (or MacBook, etc), I wonder how it got there. I wonder how much screen time it’s “supposed” to have.  I wonder if the camera pauses on the Dell logo if that was in a contract, or an artistic decision.  I shouldn’t have to wonder.  Paid placements should be disclosed somewhere (hint: end credits), for all media, not just blogs, facebook and inevitably tweets. By the way, here’s a handy-dandy guide to paying for placements in a movie.

I think it’s even more relevant for mainstream media than for new/personal media.  In the personal media landscape, say this blog for example, it is the individual’s burden to build trust.  We have to earn it by our content, thoughtfulness, tone, frequency of writing (oops), etc.  The moment we break trust, it becomes hard to rebuild it.  So if a new mommy blog comes into the public eye, then it turns out the whole thing is a paid advertisement by a big brand, with no disclosure, odds are there will be a significant drop/plummet in readership.  This, in turn, will cause the brand to end their association with the blogger (no traffic = no ad spend), thus ending the cycle.

Further, to what end must we carry disclosure? Does a film critic need to state they were given free tickets to the movie?  If so, why? Do people out there really think a free movie ticket is going to change the tone of the review?? Of course not. But what if that critic works for a TV network who carries advertising by a studio (or magazine, etc), when those huge ad dollars are at stake? Maybe it’s more important to disclose the blatant paid relationship and clear conflict of interest there, as opposed to the remote possibility that some movie blogger  got a free bag of popcorn.

I’m much less concerned about pay-to-post/tweet than virtually any other medium. Which is why I really call foul on the FTC policies.  It seems to me like yet another example of the government creating watchdog efforts on individuals and small businesses, but letting the huge players continue to get away with shenanigans. I highly recommend reading Jeff Jarvis’ commentary here (disclosure: I was not paid to include the link to his website. ah, now didn’t that just help make the post flow so much better?).

Accordingly, here are the official LIVEdigitally disclosure policies:

Disclosure Policies

  • At no time in the past, nor at any time in the future will LIVEdigitally accept payment to write a blog post. Unless said payment is sufficient to cover the outstanding balance of Jeremy’s mortgage, in which case we will take the check (and disclose it). Please, big brands, send this check!
  • Due to deep industry connections, it is safe to assume that many of the products reviewed or discussed were given to us for free. That said, at no point in the past nor future is there an exchange of “product for post”.
  • At some times LIVEdigitally will write about clients of Stage Two Consulting, however this is not a part of any business relationship, it is entirely at the discretion of the individual writer. NO incentives whatsoever are associated with these blog posts.  These relationships are always disclosed in the post.
  • At all times we attempt to identify 100% of disclosures where any potential relationship or perceived conflict of interest would arise.  Failing to do so should be considered an oversight, not deliberate, and you are welcome to leave a comment on any post if you’d like clarification.

Share this:

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Reddit

Related

Posted in Web/Internet | Tags: disclosure, ftc, paid placements | 1 Comment
« Why Newspapers are like Creamed Spinach
WikiReader sounds great. If only… »

One thought on “Our new Disclosures policy (plus some commentary)”

  1. computer accessories says:
    October 12, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    Feel more and more ads appear in the film, television, celebrity blog,force us to accept.

    Reply

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About

Jeremy Toeman is a seasoned Product leader with over 20 years experience in the convergence of digital media, mobile entertainment, social entertainment, smart TV and consumer technology. Prior ventures and projects include CNET, Viggle/Dijit/Nextguide, Sling Media, VUDU, Clicker, DivX, Rovi, Mediabolic, Boxee, and many other consumer technology companies. This blog represents his personal opinion and outlook on things.

Recent Posts

  • Back on the wagon/horse?
  • 11 Tips for Startups Pitching Big Companies
  • CES 2016: A New Role
  • Everything I Learned (So Far) Working For a Huge Company
  • And I’m Back…

Archives

Pages

  • About

Archives

  • January 2019
  • April 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • May 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • June 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004

Categories

  • Convergence (81)
  • Gadgets (144)
  • Gaming (19)
  • General (999)
  • Guides (35)
  • LD Approved (72)
  • Marketing (23)
  • Mobile Technology (111)
  • Networking (22)
  • No/Low-tech (64)
  • Product Announcements (85)
  • Product Reviews (109)
  • That's Janky (93)
  • Travel (29)
  • Video/Music/Media (115)
  • Web/Internet (103)

WordPress

  • Log in
  • WordPress

CyberChimps WordPress Themes

© LIVEdigitally
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.